Wednesday, December 18, 2013

New Zealand's Recent Referendum

       New Zealand has a slightly strange manner of effecting citizens' views on issues, via referendums. It does have a manner of selecting issues upon which they should have the right to have a vote; and a recent one relates to an interesting matter re: asset sales amidst protests over drilling for oil. More than 10% of the voters ( as required) presented a petition calling for the vote. It seems that most of the efforts behind the vote were encouraged by political parties in a minority, within the parliament.
     This has been within their laws since 1993. Three million voters received the referendum  document in mid  November.   But, apparently, according to the Economist magazine of Dec. 6, the government does not actually have to listen to the voters wishes if it does not want to. And so, apparently, if the turnout happens to be low or for whatever other reason the government my come up with, it is not legally bound by the result - and may, indeed take no heed of it.
       The majority of voters (67%) did say they did not want to see the partial sale of some state-owned assets. But some were already sold, and Mr. Key, the Prime Minister did not, it seems, as yet, see a reason, due to a voter turnout of only 40%, to follow more seriously, the results.
       Pretty odd - to go to such trouble, and indeed some expense, and then for the government to be able to ignore what their citizens wish. Surely such government does not have much right to continue, one would conclude - but then, that is New Zealand.

      

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Columnists concerned about democracy - but not via citizen voting?


        Does is not seem odd? The many, recent editorials and comments by prominent columnists in Canada about – ideas to change the manner of selecting and retaining  leadership there. Right now a party selects its leader at a convention of a few thousand members. If that party wins the majority of seats in the subsequent election, that leader becomes prime minister. After being so chosen, such leader has very great control over the wishes of the other representatives. The leaders’ “whip” can whip  any of them, into the leaders’ bidding on votes within the legislature. He does this by ensuring that monies do, or do not, get to that ridings projects; or by kicking  out such rep from  various committees, or ministries.   The leader can even veto subsequent nominations within various ridings, if he does not approve of the local ridings’ wishes.  Ideas to alter these situations, aim  to  improve our democracy, which recent polls suggest is in very low esteem among the citizens.
         But no discussions that I have noticed, about how really to improve it – by actually permitting the citizen to vote on issues  via referendums. One group is even strongly organizing itself, it seems,  to try to have  representatives within various  ridings, who   believe strongly about its favourite issue – to provide a law limiting abortions. Such a difficult manner to try to establish your point of view. Canada is, indeed,  one of the very few countries that has no law at all on abortions. Would not it be better, however, to  just permit a public vote on that subject. That vote would occur at the same time as the periodic elections. That way, one would truly know the majority view. Is not that what democracy is supposed to be all about?
         It would hardly matter just what powers a leader may have,   if the citizens could vote on the issues they truly find not being properly pursued by their elected reps. That method is followed by many states and countries – but not in any manner at all in Canada. And who is truly even discussing that method of improvement? Any of our columnists? Not recently, anyway, that I have noticed. It is odd, you must admit.  

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Many new referendums in the States, some attracting a lot of money?

     Many ballot measures  occurred in USA recently.  But, does spending money on them  buy success?   The Economist magazine in its Nov. 15 edition recounts the results in over a dozen recent campaigns in the States. In Colorado, a campaign to replace that state's flat income tax, with a"tiered" system, to try to raise  a lot of money for education purposes, apparently attracted over $10 million in support, some 300 times that spent by the other side, - but won over only a third of the voters.
     At a  suburb of Seattle, voters approved a $15.00 per hour minimum wage, and a similar vote succeeded in New Jersey. Bans on fracking were passed in 3 cities in Colorado and one in Ohio; but others turned down such proposals. Cincinnati turned down an initiative to replace city workers' defined-benefit pensions. In Colorado, having voted in favour of legalizing marijuana two years ago, the voters voted to tax sales of it. Similar marijuana favoured laws were passed in Maine and three cities in Michigan; and though  7 casinos were approved in New York State, two such proposals flopped in Massachusetts; while those in favour of weak beer cheered a result in Utah, where voters approved the sale of drinks there containing no more than 3.2% of alcohol.
     Such a lot of citizen-voting on issues in the U.S. states. And in our provinces? Do we citizens  have any real  say in anything?
   

   

Should "genetically modified" be on food labels, where it occurs?

      Genetically modified foods; should that feature be delineated upon labels, where such occurs? That question was defeated in a recent referendum in California; but it is being tested again now in Washington State. There, a rather heated "battle is being waged, with the Economist magazine of Nov. 8, stating that it is the second most expensive campaign in state history. The median contribution to the "yes" side is just $25,  but its ads are just as slick as the other side, the magazine says.
     The suggestion is that if such referendum is passed in Washington, other states will want to adopt similar laws - which would cause the federal government to become involved, to overcome the patchwork of rules which otherwise would occur. There certainly are different views about this question - but one will just have to wait  to see what democratic decision prevails; - a proper way to determine appropriate directions, it seems, to this writer.


Saturday, November 9, 2013

Direct Democracy - in Poland, and in Texas


         Direct democracy in Poland? Yes, even there, now!
         Just recently campaigners submitted 232,000 signatures to the electoral commission for verification,  almost double the number necessary, to require a vote upon whether to recall Warsaw’s mayor. This was according to a recent  Economist Magazine story about Poland’s governance.
         Now would not that be the sort of thing to overcome the mayoral debacle going on in Toronto? Am not personally anxious to include the right of recall within a Direct Democracy law – but one can see that it can be useful; (even in California they have it – when it recalled their governor Brown and then replaced him with that movie star – Swartzeneger.).
         But in Poland? And we cannot even vote for any issue here in Ontario, much less recalling a punchy mayor.
         And as to full-time kindergarten, another big issue in Ontario,  well, in San Antonio, Texas they had that issue there recently, according to  the Economist.  And so an idea to pay for such through a sales-tax for pre- K plan was put to a city-wide vote. It passed. It illustrated pretty well just what the citizens there thought was wise – to get kids into school while they are – young – but that the citizens must provide taxes to pay for it!    Instead, here in Ontario we are just going millions more in debt to pay for something  we had no say in at all.
         Even with a city in Texas, they have “direct democracy”.
         When will we in Ontario, permit our citizens to actually have a say in the things  in  which we want to have a real influence?
          

Saturday, November 2, 2013

Ireland votes via a referendum to maintain a senate.

     Talk about the Canadian senate; the people in Ireland clearly want to keep theirs. Just this past week they voted in large numbers in a referendum - to keep it. This was despite the governing party strongly supporting its abolition. Although a deep disappointment to the leaders in Ireland, the people have "spoken" and the government has agreed to follow their wishes. It will be overhauled , it seems, to improve its methods. But, it will be kept as a sort of watchdog over the moves of whatever government is in power.
     Such is the power and influence of a referendum; the voice of democracy - the power of the people; - as it should be.
     Just why cannot our people require a better form of participation - to vote in referendums? When will a party as part of its policy include the right of our people - under important, constraints, to vote on issues? It is being done in more and  more parts of the world. And, it  could certainly reduce  the wild, and increasingly disrupting  demonstrations that some people feel  are the only way to obtain a voice in what is going on.
     Congratulations Ireland! Your voice has been heard - and listened to, without requiring a new election, or any  disruption in the way the country is governed. Real democracy - it works!

Sunday, October 20, 2013

Executive pay subject to more shareholder caution, after recent Swiss vote

     Lots of easy to find, and new, information upon the internet, through looking at Google under Switzerland and new referendums; the one detail I recently found most interesting related to the 2013 federal referendum proposing a limitation upon executive bonuses etc. within Swiss national,  public companies.
     This idea was initiated by an individual, back in 2008. He was upset at the poor performances of some large Swiss companies which had paid its executives very large bonuses.
     After a lot of effort  in obtaining sufficient signatures to put the matter to a vote, and lots of money spent, especially  by opponents of the proposal, and opposition by the Swiss government, it was passed by a 62% majority. Some 1,616,000 people voted in favour, 761,000 against. All 20 full cantons and the 6 half cantons favoured it.
     Other details within the very fulsome web page point out that supporters of the proposal spent 200,000 Swiss Francs, opponents 8 million. Eleven cantons permitted overseas voters to vote online, after the federal council permitted that method.
     What the law does is require not only that shareholders annually approve the election of the president and management board,   but also the bonus schemes and pay plans for the directors, and even loans granted to such employees,  the  durationof employment contracts of executive officers; and approval of severance packages; it even bans corporate proxy, and requires pension funds to disclose the way they vote.
     Such an amazing involvement by the Swiss people in matters which most of us just shrug at, and ignore - often at our financial peril. About 2,500,000 people voted on the issue.
     And it shows that money does not always sway a majority of voters. Now, why could we in Ontario, or Canada, or even our smaller communities, not improve our democracy, and reduce the proven, great frustrations within it, by permitting such voting on issues - where enough people want to vote upon them?  Tell others; tell your member. Changes can happen, if enough people want them. Even upsetting public demonstrations and concomitant law-breaking should be lessened, if democracy by the majority actually could be more available.


Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Amazing referendums happening!

     So many interesting examples of direct democracy in Switzerland (and one in Canada) recently:
     1. The citizens of the large and powerful Canton of Zurich voted to stop its legislators from providing 200 million Swiss Francs for a new football stadium; which makes one wonder whether the city of North Bay should have permitted a referendum before expanding its coliseum by several million dollars to permit a hockey team to perform there.
    2. The small village of Hodrigen where that giant of a mining company Xstrata Glencore has a plant, and where some 1 million Sw. Frs were recently received from the 360 million  of that huge company's tax,   voted via  a referendum to provide 120 thousand Sw. Fr to aid projects in poorer parts of the world where the  company operates. Now isn't that some sort of altruistic leaning! Should our aid dollars receive similar backings?
    3. In the Italian canton of Ticino, a referendum which garnered 12,000 signatures back in 2011 for such petition just recently voted 65% in favour, to ban the public wearing of head coverings such as the Burka. It would not include carnival masks, dust filters or motorcycle helmets. But it would send a "signal" that people are against militant Islam according to a main proponent, though only a handful of such people are living in that canton.  It was hoped that the signal would be copied elsewhere within the country. We wonder whether it will be heard in Quebec, where a similar sort of effort is being now proposed; (though via a citizen referendum?)
    4. But what about the proposed guaranteed monthly income of 3,000Sw, Fr. for all Swiss adults, about which there has been just signed a petition of some 120,000 Swiss (of a needed 100,000)? It may be voted upon in 2014. Will the Swiss people approve that? Time will tell. But, it certainly has the potential of changing some fabric of that country. Some companies say that they would have to leave  if such a law came into place.
    5. Finally,  in British Columbia the only province in Canada which has   a detailed law about citizens voting in  referendums, there is very interesting effort just being started. It is to permit the legalization of marijuana. There is in B.C. an extremely difficult requirement that to have a binding citizen-initiated referendum one must get ten percent of the citizens in every riding within 90 days to sign a petition wishing such vote. Since the enactment of the enabling legislation in the 1990's, only one such question has managed such a difficult task - one which ultimately barred the HST. But some 1600 volunteers have been obtained to travel the province to obtain such signatures. Will B.C. emulate its neighbour, Washington State to permit adult smoking of  marijuana? Again, time will tell; but it is clearly another example of the pursuit of pure democracy being attempted by earnest citizens.
     Can one find fault in these efforts to involve citizens in the running of their country, countries which deem themselves - democracies?  Yet, where else in Canada, where in Ontario, where in North Bay, can one see similar examples of citizen involvement? The frustrations mount under the current system. Will we see changes here? You can hope they do; or better - try to persuade others that they should happen; - before Egyptian-like explosions happen here;  or before bankruptcies a la Detroit, destroy our very fabric.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Manitoba and California's laws flouted with impunity by their leaders.

     "Manitobans have the right ... to vote on all major tax increases that affect them," Progressive Conservative Leader Brian Pallister said. "For this government to arrogantly come out and say 'no, we 37 (NDP legislature members) have more power than you 1,000,000' is wrong." This conversation occurred on April 15,  just past.  
     Of course it is wrong! That is, if you agree with the principle of democracy - the power of the people. And in our neighbouring province it seems that they had passed - a law - a law!, that says that the government must not increase taxes without the consent of the people, by way of referendum. But the government is just ignoring that law. And on July 1 Sales Tax there increased by a full one %. Understandably many Manitobans are incensed. 
     Californians have had the right since the early 1900's to initiate laws. If enough citizens sign a clearly worded petition a referendum must be held; and if it passes, that which was agreed to by a majority of the voters must become enacted into law. In 2008 52% of the citizens  said that same-sex marriage was unconstitutional in Calif. 
     A same-sex couple brought the issue to court, and a lower court judge somehow declared the vote invalid. Governor Brown announced that the state would not enforce the law, nor act on behalf of the appellants trying to uphold it. Ultimately, on June 26, just past, a majority of the judges (unelected) of  the Supreme Court of the United States (by a 5-4 decision) declared  that that court  would not uphold the law either. 
     The prestigious Economist magazine in its July 6 edition asked - does that decision threaten the idea of Direct Democracy in United States? Well, clearly it does. Some 20 other states of the United States have, through citizens'  referendums, deemed same-sex marriages performed in their states illegal.  What other laws might be ignored with impunity by governors or premiers, or others, although  passed by citizens through proper referendums? 
     Manitobans and Californians, and citizens in other jurisdictions must look upon these decisions by our autocratic leaders with great concern. With democracy being even more important in this age of instant communication, and potential anarchy on the horizon almost everywhere,  must we try even harder to enforce the rights of the citizens in our favoured form of government - the democracy; - or we will, for sure, lose its value  even more completely !  Our laws could mean virtually nothing, except what the deemed leaders decide they should be.  Worried?  You should be! 
     


     

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

How much is Egypt like California?

     Such terrible difficulties we seem to be  having in making democracy work. Egypt is a particular example. I  visited that country of 84 million people in 2010, the summer before its violent revolution cut down the dictator Mubarack  (I was in no way responsible for that, let me assure you). That  was then followed by an organized and  much worked upon constitution and election.  A leader, Mr. Morsi,  was elected by 51% of the electorate. Democracy seemed to be happening.  And, then within one year he is   replaced by an angry mob, and the army has now taken over.  He definitely was not perfect, and as head of the major Islamic party, did try to implement processes not exactly appropriate to a secular state. But, at any rate democracy certainly is not showing much improvement in Egypt, over the previous state of affairs, run by an army-supported dictator.
     Then there is the once democratic state of California. Since the early 1900's it has often seen laws passed as a result of referendums by the citizenry. It has within it  one of the strongest economies in the world (bigger than all but 4 or 5 countries).  It obviously has been doing some things well over that time.
     But recently a major democratic decision has not only been counter-manded by the governor  Brown, but also by the Supreme Court of the United States. I am talking about the twice initiated and passed referendums by the citizens there to disallow same-sex marriage. The one in 2008 passed by over 52% of the citizens. But, someone appealed the decision to the courts, and for poorly expressed reasons the state court  agreed with the appeal. However,   governor Brown would not enforce the citizen's decision, nor support the effort to pursue the appeal further. And so on June 25, the unelected Supreme Court of the United States, by 5-4 decided what? It simply stated that the appellants of the minor court decision had no status, if the state itself was not a party to the effort. And so, they have not exactly said that the citizens were wrong   by a majority to  go against the same-sex marriage idea (as has some 20 other states). But in no manner were the majority assisted in their effort to make that new type of marriage improper. Normally democracy means - the clearly expressed will of the majority.
     But,  neither in Egypt nor in the United States can we see that idea being well expressed, in this modern day and time.     Such blows to democracy!



Friday, June 14, 2013

Calgary's attempt to-wards a referendum of its citizens

     One would think that an effort by a mayor  within a democratic community  to put an important issue to a vote by his citizenry would be looked upon as a desirable idea. In Calgary, that is being put to a bit of a test. There, due to an inadvertent error, some  $52 million was paid by the city recently to the provincial government by mistake. It is being returned. Mayor  Naheed Nenshi   believes that what should be done to it should be decided by a citizen referendum. Some 5 ideas are being suggested. Two of them involve returning the money to the taxpayers, by reducing a subsequent tax load. Three other possibilities  reflect ideas about improvements not previously felt within the city's means.
     But, some opponents of the mayor object to  this gesture to citizen involvement in decision-making. This even includes the provincial premier.  It is odd, isn't it, that anyone could object to such a gesture, in a supposed democratic-loving community. We will see just what happens, as this issue moves  along.
     It is not exactly a citizen-initiated referendum, favoured by your scribe, but it is a movement in the right direction he feels. So felt the National Post reporter - Matt Gurney in his column on June 6.

 

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Recent referendum news - in Europe, and America.

      Many bits of news about citizen referendums, recently: David Cameron, PM of Britain, is planning a referendum soon to determine whether his countrymen want to continue their close association with Europe. This is not exactly a "citizen initiated referendum", but should probably be used, says the prestigious Economist magazine, where political parties cannot effectively decide such a very important matter,  through a normal election.  
     And then there is little Latvia. Many citizens there are trying to have a referendum about whether it should join the Euro. The PM there is all in favour; but many Latvians, with long memories about their associations with Russia, and its rouble, wish to have their voice heard. With the Swiss electorate's referendum decision not to follow their "leaders" wishes about joining the Euro, several years ago, turning out to have been correct, ought this referendum be pursued also, it seems clear to this writer.
     Then, of course, there is the US experience with gun control. According to polls down there, some 90% of the citizens back changes in the law. But, as the  Economist editorialist said back on April 20,  they  just do not back such changes with intensity. And so, "passionate minorities (from the gun lobbies) .... thwart change". Enough frightened, elected representatives  beat back the ideas floated by the president and others, so that even with such horrible gun killings there, no realistic gun law changes are able to occur. Would not this be a proper place for a referendum, or two?  Even where they allegedly are somehow contrary to the constitution - constitutions are only laws, which should be changeable, if enough people want that to happen.
    Finally one should mention the interesting, recent  discussion in Colorado about a heinous criminal; some believe he should be executed, thus saving the taxpayer's a lot of money  instead of  keeping him in prison for life. Others strongly condemn such a practice.  But, in Colorado, back an 1966, and again in 1974 did the citizens affirm their desire to permit such killing. Whether one agrees in the death penalty or not, one should, in a democracy, respect such decisions, say many.They add that "where it is the government by the people, for the people", one must let the people decide; and in Colorado they seem to favour the death penalty. That is the law there - and in appropriate circumstances, should be followed. The citizens have given their view - twice!
      In the meantime..... will North Bay, will Ontario, will Canada, in this 21st Century,  permit its citizens to vote on any issues; or must the citizens there become increasingly frustrated, and ill-behaved, due to their lack of any realistic say in what is going on within their legislatures? Keep tuned in!


Friday, April 12, 2013

The Swiss now require shareholder approval of executive pay

          The Swiss have done it again. The question asked of them recently was - called "the people's initiative against fat cat pay". And   68% of the electorate passed a measure that requires "listed" companies to offer shareholders a binding vote on senior manager's pay etc. at annual meetings. A big penalty is to fall upon those bosses who do not comply. This has apparently been a 12 year cause of one strongly determined individual who had noted some patently unfair compensation packages to not so deserving corporate leaders - some in failing companies.
Some Swiss businesses are a bit "shaken", according to the Mar. 9 edition of the Economist Magazine. But, this is now the law in Switzerland, due to a carefully worded referendum which the people thought was just.
Will Ontario ever allow its citizens to vote upon issues;  not just upon the complicated process determining a representative of a party led by a leader, about which no one can  be sure will pursue policies which those people might want or expect?  Brian MacLeod wrote a column on Mar. 14, within the North Bay daily Nugget newspaper suggesting that approvals of casinos should rest with the local citizens. Apparently Tim Hudak the aspiring Ontario leader of the Conservative Party has said he would insist upon municipalities holding such. This would be a move in the right direction upon one controversial issue.
MacLeod concludes his column by pointing out -"people are  strange... they know what's best for them".
And of course it is the essence of true democracy - the people are supposed to have the say.
So many issues are not being considered by the people, though communication to-day is so much easier.
Will the quiet majority ever rise up in Ontario to require that their opinions be fully considered; or will only the party leaders, or the mobs that rule the streets, and the loudest voices be the only ones heard?


Thursday, March 21, 2013

Could "mob" vetoes be deterred by referendums?

     The "mob" has a veto? Chris Selley of the National Post recently referred to that scenario , while discussing the Albeta-led pipeline debate.  And he referred to many other similar environmentalist inspired protests elsewhere in North America; and to the Quebec student protests - and more especially to aboriginal blockades.  Some even suggest that it is media's undue attention to such protests that control  a big idea's destiny.
Then a question was asked - what if someone to-day brought forth a proposal to construct a trans-Canada railway, such as occurred a century or more ago? Would it have a chance of going forward?
You might not just need media approval; anti-railroad zealots could even get unelected courts to back their opposition.  A Toronto area railway from the airport to downtown has been held up for years by zealots in opposition.
Selley has no good answer to the power of to-day's mobs, aided by internet incendiarism, and media attention spans.
But, there is a good answer. It is to permit the majority to have a say - via properly induced referendums. When will that majority stand up and require our governments to permit them to have such a say? When, indeed?

Saturday, March 16, 2013

Citizens Petitioning Parliament for Action?

Did you  notice  two very experienced parliamentarians of very opposing sides publicly agreeing, recently, upon a potentially significant improvement into our country's democracy? Preston Manning and Ed Broadbent are supporting a current NDP member, Kennedy  Stewart's effort to require parliamentary debates upon certain issues of concern by ordinary citizenry.  Some 20 other members, including two Conservatives have also agreed that such proposal should be considered. Manning is a former Reform Party, Canadian Alliance  leader, who left office back in 2002, while Broadbent was leader of the federal NDP party for many years.
How it would work is basically, this: when some 50,000 citizens (say) signed online a petition that  a certain matter must  be decided by their parliament, such petition would be presented. If 5 (say)  elected members agreed that such was worthwhile (was not frivolous, for example), then within a certain time period such matter must be brought  up,  debated,  and  concluded one way or the other by parliament.
This is not exactly a citizen's referendum , as within the ideal of Direct Democracy activists (like myself), but certainly goes a long way to-wards reducing the considerable  frustrations created by the current process - which is so party-led, and publicly absent.
A 25 citizen petition method requiring, supposedly, similar results actually goes back historically many decades, but has not been followed in any effective manner within living memory.
A committee would be set up to examine the details  over a period of perhaps one year.
The issue is expected to be brought up before the summer.
An article on this subject was printed in the Vancouver Sun newspaper on Feb. 26.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Swiss vote against increases in their holidays

Voting not to increase your statutory holiday time? That just occurred several weeks ago in Switzerland. Some 65% of the voters there concluded they did not want to put themselves into the shoes of the economically awkward French, Germans, or Greeks. The idea was to increase the yearly holidays from 4 to 6 weeks, as in those other countries. The unions wanted it. The common sense of the people came into play once again. They said it cannot be afforded.
Who says that people do not know enough to vote upon economic issues?
Would that we had such access to our government's failure to watch its indebtedness. Would not our people tell the Liberal government that it must get better control of the teacher's union by refusing their currently outrageous demands, especially in these rough times; if only we had a chance to vote upon such an issue? Not just that but other aspects of debt, which is growing so high.
Why cannot we prevail upon our own government to establish proper boundaries for Direct Democracy to work here in Ontario? It is our government isn't it? Tell your member we want it!

Quebec Students Need Democracy Aids

It is hard to talk unemotionally about those revolting students in Quebec. Were they for real? As allegedly mature students did they not realize that what they were doing was akin to complete anarchy? However, note that, between revolting protests they talked often about wanting to improve democracy. Their wild, unconstrained method was surely the wrong way to do that.
Well, what if in Quebec  they had a proper form of Direct Democracy?  Democracy is supposed to represent the views of the majority. Then, if their views about the proposed increase in their tuition fees had a majority opinion, that could be readily determined; without disrupting the whole society, or breaking windows.  And, the government would have to let a referendum be pursued if a specified number of citizens (say 5%) signed an appropriate petition. The students readily could have organized that detail. And all of Quebec would have to follow the results of the ensuing question.
And the students could have been very pleased that their efforts would have been civilized, and more importantly, worthwhile, as deemed by the majority of their fellow citizens.
Caving in by the new Marois government simply puts off even less civilized behaviour, by other unconstrained pressure groups, for other matters, in the future.

British referendum not truly Direct Democracy

    Prime Minister David Cameron, of England, is proposing a referendum among his people as to their desire in remaining within the European Union. This is to take place hopefully in 2017, after an anticipated election about that time. In the meantime, he hopes to arrange some better terms.
This is an example of an effort to obtain a   concluded decision  from the people in a democratic fashion, that is for sure. And it is clearly proper for such an important issue to be settled by the people - rather than by possibly split political parties.  However,  do not confuse it with efforts to expand the idea of direct democracy. For in the latter case that involves  a binding process initiated by the people.
This is one initiated by the government of the time.
    At the moment there is no procedure within the UK to permit initiatives from the people, resulting in binding referendums. That is the the  only way it is done in Switzerland, for example, where via that method, the Swiss people did vote several years ago not to join the EU. The Swiss are rightly pleased at that decision, seeing the troubles now confronting the EU. And the Swiss people pursue similar types of referendums often.
    Perhaps, however, the Brits, seeing an opportunity to voice their own opinions upon an important issue on this one occasion, will push their government to give them more opportunities to do similarly in the future. For it is certainly right that the people should have a direct say in  important issues, especially in this modern age of easy communication.
    Don't you agree - even though we have no way to have any say about any issues, yet, here in Canada?